Guest guest Report post Posted December 30, 2001 B.Flaws (?) said something in the Benadryl discussions like: Benadryl must have a qi regulating effect due to its ability to eliminate pain. (Correct me if I’m wrong, I can’t find the post)… It seems, though, that many peoples’ beliefs are very close to this- ‘If a medicinal stops pain it MUST regulate qi/ xue’. I question this (I am not saying Benadryl does not reg qi). What I wonder about are substances or (processes) that might just interfere with the nervous system/ receptor sites (or whatever) and just block a sensation of the pain, but not actually move any qi at all. The pain or pathological process/ lesion can be completely unchanged but one’s perception might instantly change due to administration of i.e. morphine (or something similar) Is the qi being moved? If Qi is being moved, thus preventing the pain, shouldn’t the person show signs of healing in that area? Obviously when powerful drugs wear off many times nothing has changed, and they are at square one. If all this is true, understanding herbs in this way that eliminate pain/ (move qi/xue) would be very worthwhile. IS a given herb actually moving qi, as traditional thought might suggest, or just masking some sensation. Yan hu suo might fall into the latter category. So where there is pain there is stagnation, but can we backwards travel and say if pain ceases then qi/xue must have moved… I am not sure. We probably will have to discuss the nature of pain.. One might question how accurate a gauge pain is to determine the degree of stagnation. How do we explain 2 people with the same injury, one is screaming with their pain 9 of 10, another feels nothing. This might be important due to our current trend of attributing many chronic and aging diseases to stagnation. IS the notion of “where there is pain, there is stagnation” an oversimplified statement? What does this really mean? And when we eliminate pain what have we really done? Comments? - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 31, 2001 Jason, Conceptually, I think you're mixing apples and oranges. When thinking in terms of CM, I would suggest you need to stay within the system. I acknowledge this is not always easy for us Westerners who are pickled in Western biomedicine, but, in my experience, it is the key to superior CM. Bob , " " <@o...> wrote: > B.Flaws (?) said something in the Benadryl discussions like: Benadryl > must have a qi regulating effect due to its ability to eliminate pain. > (Correct me if I'm wrong, I can't find the post). It seems, though, > that many peoples' beliefs are very close to this- 'If a medicinal stops > pain it MUST regulate qi/ xue'. I question this (I am not saying > Benadryl does not reg qi). What I wonder about are substances or > (processes) that might just interfere with the nervous system/ receptor > sites (or whatever) and just block a sensation of the pain, but not > actually move any qi at all. The pain or pathological process/ lesion > can be completely unchanged but one's perception might instantly change > due to administration of i.e. morphine (or something similar) Is the qi > being moved? If Qi is being moved, thus preventing the pain, shouldn't > the person show signs of healing in that area? Obviously when powerful > drugs wear off many times nothing has changed, and they are at square > one. If all this is true, understanding herbs in this way that > eliminate pain/ (move qi/xue) would be very worthwhile. IS a given herb > actually moving qi, as traditional thought might suggest, or just > masking some sensation. Yan hu suo might fall into the latter category. > So where there is pain there is stagnation, but can we backwards travel > and say if pain ceases then qi/xue must have moved. I am not sure. We > probably will have to discuss the nature of pain.. > One might question how accurate a gauge pain is to determine the > degree of stagnation. How do we explain 2 people with the same injury, > one is screaming with their pain 9 of 10, another feels nothing. This > might be important due to our current trend of attributing many chronic > and aging diseases to stagnation. IS the notion of " where there is > pain, there is stagnation " an oversimplified statement? What does this > really mean? And when we eliminate pain what have we really done? > Comments? > > - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 31, 2001 How do we explain 2 people with the same injury, one is screaming with their pain 9 of 10, another feels nothing. >>>Well su wen says if heart is peaceful all pain is negligible. So we have accounts for this in both modern biomed and CM Alon - traditional chinese herbs Sunday, December 30, 2001 2:08 PM Qi regulation B.Flaws (?) said something in the Benadryl discussions like: Benadryl must have a qi regulating effect due to its ability to eliminate pain. (Correct me if I’m wrong, I can’t find the post)… It seems, though, that many peoples’ beliefs are very close to this- ‘If a medicinal stops pain it MUST regulate qi/ xue’. I question this (I am not saying Benadryl does not reg qi). What I wonder about are substances or (processes) that might just interfere with the nervous system/ receptor sites (or whatever) and just block a sensation of the pain, but not actually move any qi at all. The pain or pathological process/ lesion can be completely unchanged but one’s perception might instantly change due to administration of i.e. morphine (or something similar) Is the qi being moved? If Qi is being moved, thus preventing the pain, shouldn’t the person show signs of healing in that area? Obviously when powerful drugs wear off many times nothing has changed, and they are at square one. If all this is true, understanding herbs in this way that eliminate pain/ (move qi/xue) would be very worthwhile. IS a given herb actually moving qi, as traditional thought might suggest, or just masking some sensation. Yan hu suo might fall into the latter category. So where there is pain there is stagnation, but can we backwards travel and say if pain ceases then qi/xue must have moved… I am not sure. We probably will have to discuss the nature of pain.. One might question how accurate a gauge pain is to determine the degree of stagnation. How do we explain 2 people with the same injury, one is screaming with their pain 9 of 10, another feels nothing. This might be important due to our current trend of attributing many chronic and aging diseases to stagnation. IS the notion of “where there is pain, there is stagnation” an oversimplified statement? What does this really mean? And when we eliminate pain what have we really done? Comments? -Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 31, 2001 Alon, I think your response begs the question. It certainly does not give an answer in terms of CM theory. So let me try to think this through using CM theory. Sensitivity is one of the functions of the spirit brilliance and the spirit brilliance is nothing other than a collection of yang qi. In my experience, people who are more sensitive to pain are those whose yang qi stirs more easily than others. Those with a more easily stirred spirit qi are those who either 1) have less yin-blood to control their yang qi, 2) have more heat stirring the qi, or 3) have less qi constructing their spirit. This last possibility seems perhaps somewhat counterintuitive. If one has less qi, shouldn't that qi stir less? However, restlessness of the heart spirit and anxiety and fear can be caused by nonconstruction and malnourishment of the heart spirit. In my experience as an acupuncturist, many people who are more than ordinarily sensitive to pain have a combination of heat plus nonconstruction and malnourishment. Especially vacuity heat tends to be associated with hypersensitivity. Again in my experience, very robust patients with a lot of qi and a lot of blood accompanied by a lot of phlegm turbidity tend to be less sensitive to pain. Whether these thoughts are correct or not, I would, nevertheless, invite people to really try to think with CM theory. Bob , " ALON MARCUS " <alonmarcus@w...> wrote: > Qi regulationHow do we explain 2 people with the same injury, one is screaming with their pain 9 of 10, another feels nothing. > >>>Well su wen says if heart is peaceful all pain is negligible. So we have accounts for this in both modern biomed and CM > Alon > - > > traditional chinese herbs > Sunday, December 30, 2001 2:08 PM > Qi regulation > > > B.Flaws (?) said something in the Benadryl discussions like: Benadryl must have a qi regulating effect due to its ability to eliminate pain. (Correct me if I'm wrong, I can't find the post). It seems, though, that many peoples' beliefs are very close to this- 'If a medicinal stops pain it MUST regulate qi/ xue'. I question this (I am not saying Benadryl does not reg qi). What I wonder about are substances or (processes) that might just interfere with the nervous system/ receptor sites (or whatever) and just block a sensation of the pain, but not actually move any qi at all. The pain or pathological process/ lesion can be completely unchanged but one's perception might instantly change due to administration of i.e. morphine (or something similar) Is the qi being moved? If Qi is being moved, thus preventing the pain, shouldn't the person show signs of healing in that area? Obviously when powerful drugs wear off many times nothing has changed, and they are at square one. If all this is true, understanding herbs in this way that eliminate pain/ (move qi/xue) would be very worthwhile. IS a given herb actually moving qi, as traditional thought might suggest, or just masking some sensation. Yan hu suo might fall into the latter category. So where there is pain there is stagnation, but can we backwards travel and say if pain ceases then qi/xue must have moved. I am not sure. We probably will have to discuss the nature of pain.. > > One might question how accurate a gauge pain is to determine the degree of stagnation. How do we explain 2 people with the same injury, one is screaming with their pain 9 of 10, another feels nothing. This might be important due to our current trend of attributing many chronic and aging diseases to stagnation. IS the notion of " where there is pain, there is stagnation " an oversimplified statement? What does this really mean? And when we eliminate pain what have we really done? > > Comments? > > - > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 31, 2001 In my experience as an acupuncturist, many people who are more than ordinarily sensitive to pain have a combination of heat plus nonconstruction and malnourishment. Especially vacuity heat tends to be associated with hypersensitivity. Again in my experience, very robust patients with a lot of qi and a lot of blood accompanied by a lot of phlegm turbidity tend to be less sensitive to pain.>>>>>firstly I was just quoting the su wen. also, has to your analysis I would say Yes and no. I do some really painful procedures (not your simple deep acupuncture), many that are usually done under anesthesia. by MD's. I know people reaction to acute pain very well and I can tell you, that some of the weakest patients that have clearly weak yang qi, def yin rising yang, heart qi blood def may do very well. While others such as strong athletes that relay do not have any other complaint beside their pain do to an injury, and their pulse, tongue and abdomen show nothing abnormal, get off the table with screams. I have been surpassed to many times to buy into your explanation or the su wen for that matter. Alon - pemachophel2001 Monday, December 31, 2001 11:48 AM Re: Qi regulation Alon,I think your response begs the question. It certainly does not give an answer in terms of CM theory. So let me try to think this through using CM theory.Sensitivity is one of the functions of the spirit brilliance and the spirit brilliance is nothing other than a collection of yang qi. In my experience, people who are more sensitive to pain are those whose yang qi stirs more easily than others. Those with a more easily stirred spirit qi are those who either 1) have less yin-blood to control their yang qi, 2) have more heat stirring the qi, or 3) have less qi constructing their spirit. This last possibility seems perhaps somewhat counterintuitive. If one has less qi, shouldn't that qi stir less? However, restlessness of the heart spirit and anxiety and fear can be caused by nonconstruction and malnourishment of the heart spirit.In my experience as an acupuncturist, many people who are more than ordinarily sensitive to pain have a combination of heat plus nonconstruction and malnourishment. Especially vacuity heat tends to be associated with hypersensitivity. Again in my experience, very robust patients with a lot of qi and a lot of blood accompanied by a lot of phlegm turbidity tend to be less sensitive to pain.Whether these thoughts are correct or not, I would, nevertheless, invite people to really try to think with CM theory.Bob , "ALON MARCUS" <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:> Qi regulationHow do we explain 2 people with the same injury, one is screaming with their pain 9 of 10, another feels nothing. > >>>Well su wen says if heart is peaceful all pain is negligible. So we have accounts for this in both modern biomed and CM> Alon> - > > traditional chinese herbs > Sunday, December 30, 2001 2:08 PM> Qi regulation> > > B.Flaws (?) said something in the Benadryl discussions like: Benadryl must have a qi regulating effect due to its ability to eliminate pain. (Correct me if I'm wrong, I can't find the post). It seems, though, that many peoples' beliefs are very close to this- 'If a medicinal stops pain it MUST regulate qi/ xue'. I question this (I am not saying Benadryl does not reg qi). What I wonder about are substances or (processes) that might just interfere with the nervous system/ receptor sites (or whatever) and just block a sensation of the pain, but not actually move any qi at all. The pain or pathological process/ lesion can be completely unchanged but one's perception might instantly change due to administration of i.e. morphine (or something similar) Is the qi being moved? If Qi is being moved, thus preventing the pain, shouldn't the person show signs of healing in that area? Obviously when powerful drugs wear off many times nothing has changed, and they are at square one. If all this is true, understanding herbs in this way that eliminate pain/ (move qi/xue) would be very worthwhile. IS a given herb actually moving qi, as traditional thought might suggest, or just masking some sensation. Yan hu suo might fall into the latter category. So where there is pain there is stagnation, but can we backwards travel and say if pain ceases then qi/xue must have moved. I am not sure. We probably will have to discuss the nature of pain.. > > One might question how accurate a gauge pain is to determine the degree of stagnation. How do we explain 2 people with the same injury, one is screaming with their pain 9 of 10, another feels nothing. This might be important due to our current trend of attributing many chronic and aging diseases to stagnation. IS the notion of "where there is pain, there is stagnation" an oversimplified statement? What does this really mean? And when we eliminate pain what have we really done?> > Comments?> > -> > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted December 31, 2001 Sensitivity is one of the functions of the spirit brilliance and the spirit brilliance is nothing other than a collection of yang qi. In my experience, people who are more sensitive to pain are those whose yang qi stirs more easily than others. Those with a more easily stirred spirit qi are those who either 1) have less yin-blood to control their yang qi, 2) have more heat stirring the qi, or 3) have less qi constructing their spirit. >>>>Also Bob, this does not explain the incredible variability to pain that is just due to cultural differences. As a so called gynecologist you should know this very well. Alon - pemachophel2001 Monday, December 31, 2001 11:48 AM Re: Qi regulation Alon,I think your response begs the question. It certainly does not give an answer in terms of CM theory. So let me try to think this through using CM theory.Sensitivity is one of the functions of the spirit brilliance and the spirit brilliance is nothing other than a collection of yang qi. In my experience, people who are more sensitive to pain are those whose yang qi stirs more easily than others. Those with a more easily stirred spirit qi are those who either 1) have less yin-blood to control their yang qi, 2) have more heat stirring the qi, or 3) have less qi constructing their spirit. This last possibility seems perhaps somewhat counterintuitive. If one has less qi, shouldn't that qi stir less? However, restlessness of the heart spirit and anxiety and fear can be caused by nonconstruction and malnourishment of the heart spirit.In my experience as an acupuncturist, many people who are more than ordinarily sensitive to pain have a combination of heat plus nonconstruction and malnourishment. Especially vacuity heat tends to be associated with hypersensitivity. Again in my experience, very robust patients with a lot of qi and a lot of blood accompanied by a lot of phlegm turbidity tend to be less sensitive to pain.Whether these thoughts are correct or not, I would, nevertheless, invite people to really try to think with CM theory.Bob , "ALON MARCUS" <alonmarcus@w...> wrote:> Qi regulationHow do we explain 2 people with the same injury, one is screaming with their pain 9 of 10, another feels nothing. > >>>Well su wen says if heart is peaceful all pain is negligible. So we have accounts for this in both modern biomed and CM> Alon> - > > traditional chinese herbs > Sunday, December 30, 2001 2:08 PM> Qi regulation> > > B.Flaws (?) said something in the Benadryl discussions like: Benadryl must have a qi regulating effect due to its ability to eliminate pain. (Correct me if I'm wrong, I can't find the post). It seems, though, that many peoples' beliefs are very close to this- 'If a medicinal stops pain it MUST regulate qi/ xue'. I question this (I am not saying Benadryl does not reg qi). What I wonder about are substances or (processes) that might just interfere with the nervous system/ receptor sites (or whatever) and just block a sensation of the pain, but not actually move any qi at all. The pain or pathological process/ lesion can be completely unchanged but one's perception might instantly change due to administration of i.e. morphine (or something similar) Is the qi being moved? If Qi is being moved, thus preventing the pain, shouldn't the person show signs of healing in that area? Obviously when powerful drugs wear off many times nothing has changed, and they are at square one. If all this is true, understanding herbs in this way that eliminate pain/ (move qi/xue) would be very worthwhile. IS a given herb actually moving qi, as traditional thought might suggest, or just masking some sensation. Yan hu suo might fall into the latter category. So where there is pain there is stagnation, but can we backwards travel and say if pain ceases then qi/xue must have moved. I am not sure. We probably will have to discuss the nature of pain.. > > One might question how accurate a gauge pain is to determine the degree of stagnation. How do we explain 2 people with the same injury, one is screaming with their pain 9 of 10, another feels nothing. This might be important due to our current trend of attributing many chronic and aging diseases to stagnation. IS the notion of "where there is pain, there is stagnation" an oversimplified statement? What does this really mean? And when we eliminate pain what have we really done?> > Comments?> > -> > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 1, 2002 Bob I agree with you in general sense but have a question, what do you think: sensation of pain when you put needles and sensation of pain related to some disease are the same stirring Yang Qi? Yuri > > Sensitivity is one of the functions of the spirit > brilliance and the > spirit brilliance is nothing other than a collection > of yang qi. In my > experience, people who are more sensitive to pain > are those whose yang > qi stirs more easily than others. Those with a more > easily stirred > spirit qi are those who either 1) have less > yin-blood to control their > yang qi, 2) have more heat stirring the qi, or 3) > have less qi > constructing their spirit. Send your FREE holiday greetings online! http://greetings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 1, 2002 Yuri, There is a single statement about pain in CM which is bedrock theory. If there is pain, there is no free flow (tong ze bu tong). That means that any and all pain has to do with a lack of free flow. When one puts a needle in a patient's body and there is a sensation of pain, that means that, for as long as the pain is felt, there is some blockage of the free flow. If the pain is just a sharp, transient prick as the needle pierces the skin, I would interpret this as a transient blackage of the movement of the exterior defensive (wai wei) and the blood in the sun luo or grandchild network vessels. If it is a more long-lasting aching and soreness, then I would interpret this as the needle's stimulation of an accumulation of qi in the area. As long as the aching and soreness are felt, the qi in that area is not completely free-flowing. I think one can visualize this as building up pressure in an area which eventually becomes so great as to burst through whatever blockage may be impeding free flow. In a sense, we are creating a temporary lack of free flow in order to build up pressure to break through a pathological free flow. (I've never expressed this before. So I hope you get what I mean.) But we need to be careful here. There are two issues that appear to be conflated in your response to my posting. One is the production of pain and the other is the sensation of pain. These are not one and the same thing. As stated above, pain is the subjective sensation of lack of free flow. However, as well all know, some people are more or less sensative to pain. As I said yesterday, sensation is a function of qi. I believe that those who are more sensitive have more easily stirred spirit qi than others. Then I went on to suggest two or three basic mechanisms for some people's spirit qi being more easily stirred. So what we have here is a multi-leveled discussion, and I think it's important to keep the various sections of this discussion separate. However, I only know of one definitive statement in Chinese medicine about pain regardless of the type of pain that is under discussion. " If there is pain, there is no free flow. " If one accepts that basic premise, what I refer to as a CM statement of fact, then one must discuss all types and instances of pain in terms of CM in the light of that basic premise. Bob , leah tynkova <leahhome> wrote: > Bob > I agree with you in general sense but have a question, > what do you think: > sensation of pain when you put needles and sensation > of pain related to some disease are the same stirring > Yang Qi? > Yuri > > > > > Sensitivity is one of the functions of the spirit > > brilliance and the > > spirit brilliance is nothing other than a collection > > of yang qi. In my > > experience, people who are more sensitive to pain > > are those whose yang > > qi stirs more easily than others. Those with a more > > easily stirred > > spirit qi are those who either 1) have less > > yin-blood to control their > > yang qi, 2) have more heat stirring the qi, or 3) > > have less qi > > constructing their spirit. > > > > > Send your FREE holiday greetings online! > http://greetings. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 1, 2002 Bob, Could you explain exactly why we cannot supposedly mix these 'apples and oranges'? And what exactly are the apples and oranges? Your (assumed) statements: (Based on: where there is pain there is lack of flow): (correct me if I am wrong) 1. " Any substance that eliminates pain moves qi " Hence is a Qi mover. (/xue) 2. Can I further say that you believe that " Any substance that eliminates pain moves qi (in the area of the pain). " 3. Further " any process or action that eliminates pain moves qi (in the area of pain) " First, I can currently only agree with the 1st statement in the sense that all substances and actions move qi somewhere on some level. But I cannot see how any substance that eliminates pain moves the qi in the area of pain therefore eliminating the pain. (see previous post) Secondly, I am unsure I have ever read the above assumptions in CM literature, and don't know if logic supports them. But let's assume that somewhere is CM it is supported. Also there are many CM herbs that deal with pain and are not actually said to move qi. Is this assumed? I personally (in this case) see no reason we must stay confined strictly to a CM perspective, because looking at it from a western understanding is precisely the point. I am challenging the basic 'supposed statement of fact' or assumption based on the statement of fact (see above). Personally I believe there are no facts. So let's start from the premise that the statement previously mentioned about pain is a theory or idea in CM. I think that with any theory, new understanding of a given system, can either support or change it. I am suggesting that with modern understanding the above statements might not be adequate. I don't think there is any debate that Chinese medical history is filled with examples of theories that did not pan out or have been updated with 'new' understanding or 'new' beliefs or concepts. And as far as integrated understanding of ideas, I thought this was precisely the point in discussing benadryl, a combined approach. I am not ready to except anything as a fact, especially when kept within its original system. AS the Chinese are currently doing, let us challenge this idea from a modern (possibly more enhanced/ thorough) understanding of pain in relation to medicinals / substances given to alter pain. Interestingly it seems (CM) qi regulators move qi and eliminate pain in specific areas. Morphine, for example, has a systemic action. Quite possibly since TCM had no substances as strong as morphine this led to a slightly pedant view of pain and qi. This discussion begs an understanding of not only qi but pain from a CM and western perspective, Ken? Finally as a side exercise then, (in a completely CM system) let us explain morphine as a qi regulator. Comments? - > > pemachophel2001 [pemachophel2001] > Monday, December 31, 2001 9:24 AM > > Re: Qi regulation > > Jason, > > Conceptually, I think you're mixing apples and oranges. When thinking > in terms of CM, I would suggest you need to stay within the system. I > acknowledge this is not always easy for us Westerners who are pickled > in Western biomedicine, but, in my experience, it is the key to > superior CM. > > Bob > > , " " <@o...> wrote: > > B.Flaws (?) said something in the Benadryl discussions like: > Benadryl > > must have a qi regulating effect due to its ability to eliminate > pain. > > (Correct me if I'm wrong, I can't find the post). It seems, though, > > that many peoples' beliefs are very close to this- 'If a medicinal > stops > > pain it MUST regulate qi/ xue'. I question this (I am not saying > > Benadryl does not reg qi). What I wonder about are substances or > > (processes) that might just interfere with the nervous system/ > receptor > > sites (or whatever) and just block a sensation of the pain, but not > > actually move any qi at all. The pain or pathological process/ > lesion > > can be completely unchanged but one's perception might instantly > change > > due to administration of i.e. morphine (or something similar) Is the > qi > > being moved? If Qi is being moved, thus preventing the pain, > shouldn't > > the person show signs of healing in that area? Obviously when > powerful > > drugs wear off many times nothing has changed, and they are at > square > > one. If all this is true, understanding herbs in this way that > > eliminate pain/ (move qi/xue) would be very worthwhile. IS a given > herb > > actually moving qi, as traditional thought might suggest, or just > > masking some sensation. Yan hu suo might fall into the latter > category. > > So where there is pain there is stagnation, but can we backwards > travel > > and say if pain ceases then qi/xue must have moved. I am not sure. > We > > probably will have to discuss the nature of pain.. > > One might question how accurate a gauge pain is to determine > the > > degree of stagnation. How do we explain 2 people with the same > injury, > > one is screaming with their pain 9 of 10, another feels nothing. > This > > might be important due to our current trend of attributing many > chronic > > and aging diseases to stagnation. IS the notion of " where there is > > pain, there is stagnation " an oversimplified statement? What does > this > > really mean? And when we eliminate pain what have we really done? > > Comments? > > > > - > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 1, 2002 , " " <@o...> wrote: > Also there are many CM herbs that deal with pain and are not actually > said to move qi. I assume when Bob mentioned free flow, he was talking about blood and qi. So herbs that relieve pain either move qi, blood or both. So we are not merely limited to qi regulators, but also blood invigorators. So what other types of herbs relieve pain besides these. Well, I guess it depends on how one defines pain and how one understands the causes of impaired freeflow. So why do herbs that expel winddamp relieve pain? Do they move qi or blood? Do they free flow by dispelling the pathogen blocking the free flow? How about phlegm? Some cases of stubborn bi are attributed to phlegm, but again this is due to impaired free flow. So the pain in each case is due to lack of free flow, with additional qualities related to the pathogen (i.e. cold is severe, damp is fixed, etc.). What about liver yang rising caused headaches? I suppose the only reason one has pain from yang rising is because the upwards force has no where to go, thus the flow is impaired. Nevertheless, I would agree that gou teng does not treat headache by increasing flow, for example. What about lumbar soreness and aching due to kidney xu? Is this technically something other than pain because the tratment principle in this case is to supplement? How about headaches due to blood xu? Isn't this dull aching due to vacuity, not stagnation? However, when it comes to vacuity pain, none of the herbs have very strong pain relieving effects. That does seem limited to those herbs that move stagnation. So the question returns to whether an herb or drug like morphine can be called a blood mover. You seem to be saying since the drug has no actual effect on blood circulation from a western perspective, but merely blocks pain receptors, it does not actually cause movement. And also that the condition of blood stasis (presumably from a TCM perspective) is not really altered. That morphine does not lead to any healing, such as the way an herb like hong hua, dan shen, chaun xiong do. I'll add that most of the herbs I can think of that move blood in TCM also alter circulation in WM. The thing that occurs to me as I write this is that when one takes morphine or other opiates for pain (many people are familiar with vicodin for dental work, as an example), the perception of the patient is a restoration of qi flow, albeit temporary. I am not sure that it says anywhere in the CM literature that blood mover leads to healing. It is a branch or excess pathology, after all. Isn't it this change in subjective perception the basis of all understanding in TCM. For example, an herb may lead to altered perception of heat effusion without altering body temperature. Nevertheless, could such an herb be said to have a heat clearing function anyway? On a concrete level, taking morphine allows one who is doubled over or crying in agony, who can't move even the slightest bit to have their freedom of movement or function restored. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 1, 2002 Bob, I would argue that despite the correctness of the bulk of your comments on pain, there is a basic misapplication of theory at work here. This gets at Alon's question as to what differences can be attained from looking into the language and its relationship to the thought that has gone into the development of medical theory, strategy, methods, and substances over the centuries. I'll go through your statements as carefully as I can, but I want to preface those detailed comments with a general one. Despite the fact of the definite and characteristic structure of the theories of Chinese medicine, and here I am thinking of Unschuld's phrase, the medicine of systematic correspondence, there is no statemnt, assertion, presumption or requirement that any part of theory or indeed the whole body of theory ever apply to any particular situation or circumstance. Theory in Chinese medicine is not a collation of laws, but rather the aggregation of long and careful observations of phenomena. The phenomena themselves are first and last and always considered as being of senior importance, so to speak, and always take precedence over theory. That is to say, Chinese medical theories ought never be stretched and bent to match situations. They function best when they reveal to the user a pattern of predictable relationships and dynamics that when found to be present not only confirm the theoretical presumptions but open a doorway to intervention. When no such match occurs or is found, the basic theoretical principle is: use another theory. The effort to adapt a theory to a situation or, perhaps worse, to adapt a situation to a theory, is needless because there is no presumption that anything at all about theory is true or applicable to any given situation. We do, after all, live in a fairly unpredictable universe, our tendency to represent it as orderly and well understood notwithstanding. Despite the very best formulations of human theorizing about nature, it is nature that always has a surprise or two in store for humans. Chinese philosophy recognizes the relative importance of theory to reality, for example in the passage from Chapter 25 of the Dao De Jing that states that there are four phenomena of greatness in the world and that mankind is one of them. Man follows the earth. The earth follows heaven. Heaven follows the dao4. And dao4 follows things themselves (i.e. nature). I would argue that the dao4 of medicine relies upon this same set of greatnesses. > > There is a single statement about pain in CM which is bedrock theory. > If there is pain, there is no free flow (tong ze bu tong). I'm at a disadvantage at the moment of having no dictionary to hand. Can you clarify what these terms are? I'm presuming that you're referring to the old saying that says: tong1 ze2 bu2 tong4 tong4 ze2 bu2 tong1 where there's connection there's no pain where there's pain there's no connection If this is correct and the first tong is jiao1 tong1 de tong1, then the word " flow " is an interprative translation that, while not at all incorrect, emphasizes one particular aspect of the concept of tong1, flow, and overlooks a more basic and I believe in this instance relevant sense of the word, i.e. to connect. Now, it might be argued that the implications of " connection " include the provision of a pathway for " flow " , but the two English words clearly mean something different from each other. If we're talking about the same phrase, if it's the tong1 that I'm thinking of, then I'd suggest the connection idea over the idea of flow. From the perspective of trying to identify a generalized etiology of " pain, " therefore, we might be guided to conclude that the phrase you've cited means that pain results from broken or missing connections in the body, i.e. things that should be in touch, in communication and interchange with each other are not, hence, pain. That means > that any and all pain has to do with a lack of free flow. When one > puts a needle in a patient's body and there is a sensation of pain, > that means that, for as long as the pain is felt, there is some > blockage of the free flow. If the pain is just a sharp, transient > prick as the needle pierces the skin, I would interpret this as a > transient blackage of the movement of the exterior defensive (wai > wei) and the blood in the sun luo or grandchild network vessels. Well, you're certainly dead on when you mention later on that there are multiple layers to this discussion. I find pain to be one of the most challenging concepts in medicine. Not the least of the challenges involved in understanding and dealing with pain is the fact of its highly subjective nature. One individual's pain is another's pleasure and vice versa. But however a person experiences and defines and talks about their pain, I would stress that rather than assume that " any and all pain has to do with a lack of free flow " we might be more accurate to consider that in the clinical assessment of symptomatic pain, we can expect to find productive means of intervention if we look for broken connections. I would further suggest that one of the problems with Yuri's question is that it does not clearly identify what he wants to contrast and that you end up comparing two class of phenomena which are not, strictly speaking comparable. When an acupuncture needle is inserted, according to the theory of de2 qi4, there will be one or more sensations that occur, signalling the " arrival of qi4. " De2 qi4 sensations are not really categorized in the same way as symptomatic pains and therefore trying to describe or explain them with the theory of pain results in a misfit. This is not to say that during acupuncture a patient may not experience pain of the category that would fit into symptomatic pains and therefore be properly addressed with the theory you mention. But this would tend to be viewed as diverging from the norms of clinical experience, i.e. an adverse perhaps even iatrogenic response. The acculturation to Chinese medicine is nowhere more well illustrated in my experience than this very subject of pain and especially sensations associated with de2 qi4. When I first got to China and for a few years at least, I was repeatedly amazed to find patients in the clinic who begged for and demanded stronger sensation from the needle. The image remains vivid with me until today of an elderly woman sitting in front of me while I inserted a big Chinese needle into her face, berating me for being a weakling and insisting that I give her some zhang1 sensation at once or she was going to get the nice young Chinese intern to treat her. Here we come to a crossing of some of the many layers that you cautioned about. An typical American patient receiving acupuncture would be halfway to their lawyer's office with dreams of retiring on the proceeds from the malpractice suit that they could press after having been treated with 1/10th the sensation that this little old woman had already reported. Pain is not only a highly personal and subjective things, but the pathways that lead to this highly individualized reality of pain are intricately woven into cultural fabrics that patients grow in and with. Here it might be worth mentioning that the multiple meanings of a word like " tong1 " imparts a flexibility and adaptive quality to the Chinese written language which this type of theory exploits. That is to say that the flexibility of mind that is rooted in the way we understand Chinese words extends to the way that we apply theoretical principles built from such linguistic building blocks. I believe it is this flexibility and adaptive quality of the language that some tend to incorrectly interpret as meaning or implying that there can never be standard translations. To the contrary, this kind of flexibility has always carried with it a commensurate set of restrictions and guidelines for how meaning is to be gotten from words and terms and phrases. There is thus both an enormous amount of freedom as well as restraint with which one must become conversant in order to construct adequate personal understanding of the words and the theories, which are when all is said and done, just collections of words. > > If it is a more long-lasting aching and soreness, then I would > interpret this as the needle's stimulation of an accumulation of qi in > the area. As long as the aching and soreness are felt, the qi in that > area is not completely free-flowing. I think one can visualize this as > building up pressure in an area which eventually becomes so great as > to burst through whatever blockage may be impeding free flow. I don't agree with this, and again I think its fault lies in being rigidly bound to a single intrepretation of what qi4 means as it " flows " through the body. This characterization presumes as well as assigns an " energy-like " nature of qi4, as if it were entirely substantive. In a > sense, we are creating a temporary lack of free flow in order to build > up pressure to break through a pathological free flow. (I've never > expressed this before. So I hope you get what I mean.) I see the logic of what you're saying, but I once again find the underlying presumptions to be unsound precisely at the level of what qi4 is. > > But we need to be careful here. There are two issues that appear to > be conflated in your response to my posting. One is the production of > pain and the other is the sensation of pain. These are not one and the > same thing. As stated above, pain is the subjective sensation of lack > of free flow. However, as well all know, some people are more or less > sensative to pain. Yeah. Absolutely. I think there are far more than just two issues. As I said yesterday, sensation is a function of qi. > I believe that those who are more sensitive have more easily stirred > spirit qi than others. I'm still not clear what this means. Can you elaborate? Then I went on to suggest two or three basic > mechanisms for some people's spirit qi being more easily stirred. > > So what we have here is a multi-leveled discussion, and I think it's > important to keep the various sections of this discussion separate. > However, I only know of one definitive statement in Chinese medicine > about pain regardless of the type of pain that is under discussion. > " If there is pain, there is no free flow. " If one accepts that basic > premise, what I refer to as a CM statement of fact, then one must > discuss all types and instances of pain in terms of CM in the light of > that basic premise. But again, we ought not use theories designed to diagnose clinical, symptomatic pains to understand the mechanism, causes, importance, and use of de2 qi4 sensations. I suspect that there are several interpretations out there of these phenomena, terms, etc., and I by no means consider that my understanding is complete. I'll appreciate reading what you or others have to add, correct, and so on. Ken Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 1, 2002 Ken: Would this also apply to emotional pain in respect to 5-Phases? Jim Ramholz > tong1 ze2 bu2 tong4 > tong4 ze2 bu2 tong1 > > where there's connection there's no pain > where there's pain there's no connection > > If this is correct and the first tong is jiao1 tong1 > de tong1, then the word " flow " is an > interprative translation that, while > not at all incorrect, emphasizes one > particular aspect of the concept of > tong1, flow, and overlooks a more basic > and I believe in this instance relevant > sense of the word, i.e. to connect. Now, it might > be argued that the implications of > " connection " include the provision > of a pathway for " flow " , but the two > English words clearly mean something > different from each other. If we're talking > about the same phrase, if it's the tong1 that I'm > thinking of, then I'd suggest the connection > idea over the idea of flow. From the perspective of > trying to identify a generalized etiology > of " pain, " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 1, 2002 Jim, > Would this also apply to emotional pain in respect to 5-Phases? The issue of emotional pain lies in that realm of the manifold layers that Bob Flaws cautioned about. So I want to make sure that I clearly understand what your intention is here. Does the old saying apply to emotional pain? Do the points about the diagnosis of pain I made apply to emotional pain? Certainly five phases applies to the assessment and treatment of emotional pain, since the pain of grief is so different from the pain of terror. Each affects a different organic system according to five phase theory and produces different feelings, different characteristic changes in qi4. Just as an aside, I think that not only a clearer understanding of Chinese words but English words as well can aid in the understanding and use of such key terms. For example, knowing that the Greek root of the English word " pain " means " penalty " informs a certain understanding of what pain is, particularly when we consider that cultural dimension of the experience of pain. Can you clarify and/or elaborate on your question? Ken > > > > > tong1 ze2 bu2 tong4 > > tong4 ze2 bu2 tong1 > > > > where there's connection there's no pain > > where there's pain there's no connection > > > > If this is correct and the first tong is jiao1 tong1 > > de tong1, then the word " flow " is an > > interprative translation that, while > > not at all incorrect, emphasizes one > > particular aspect of the concept of > > tong1, flow, and overlooks a more basic > > and I believe in this instance relevant > > sense of the word, i.e. to connect. Now, it might > > be argued that the implications of > > " connection " include the provision > > of a pathway for " flow " , but the two > > English words clearly mean something > > different from each other. If we're talking > > about the same phrase, if it's the tong1 that I'm > > thinking of, then I'd suggest the connection > > idea over the idea of flow. From the perspective of > > trying to identify a generalized etiology > > of " pain, " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 2, 2002 I am challenging the basic'supposed statement of fact' or assumption based on the statement offact (see above). >>>>Nice to know somebody else out there is will to look beyond dogma Alon - Tuesday, January 01, 2002 8:00 PM RE: Re: Qi regulation Bob, Could you explain exactly why we cannot supposedly mix these'apples and oranges'? And what exactly are the apples and oranges?Your (assumed) statements: (Based on: where there is pain there is lackof flow): (correct me if I am wrong)1. "Any substance that eliminates pain moves qi" Hence is a Qi mover.(/xue)2. Can I further say that you believe that "Any substance thateliminates pain moves qi (in the area of the pain)."3. Further "any process or action that eliminates pain moves qi (in thearea of pain)"First, I can currently only agree with the 1st statement in the sensethat all substances and actions move qi somewhere on some level. But Icannot see how any substance that eliminates pain moves the qi in thearea of pain therefore eliminating the pain. (see previous post)Secondly, I am unsure I have ever read the above assumptions in CMliterature, and don't know if logic supports them. But let's assumethat somewhere is CM it is supported.Also there are many CM herbs that deal with pain and are not actuallysaid to move qi. Is this assumed? I personally (in this case) see no reason we must stay confinedstrictly to a CM perspective, because looking at it from a westernunderstanding is precisely the point. I am challenging the basic'supposed statement of fact' or assumption based on the statement offact (see above). Personally I believe there are no facts. So let'sstart from the premise that the statement previously mentioned aboutpain is a theory or idea in CM. I think that with any theory, newunderstanding of a given system, can either support or change it. I am suggesting that with modern understanding the abovestatements might not be adequate. I don't think there is any debate thatChinese medical history is filled with examples of theories that did notpan out or have been updated with 'new' understanding or 'new' beliefsor concepts. And as far as integrated understanding of ideas, I thoughtthis was precisely the point in discussing benadryl, a combinedapproach. I am not ready to except anything as a fact, especially whenkept within its original system. AS the Chinese are currently doing, letus challenge this idea from a modern (possibly more enhanced/ thorough)understanding of pain in relation to medicinals / substances given toalter pain. Interestingly it seems (CM) qi regulators move qi and eliminatepain in specific areas. Morphine, for example, has a systemic action. Quite possibly since TCM had no substances as strong as morphine thisled to a slightly pedant view of pain and qi. This discussion begs anunderstanding of not only qi but pain from a CM and western perspective,Ken? Finally as a side exercise then, (in a completely CM system) letus explain morphine as a qi regulator. Comments? -> > pemachophel2001 [pemachophel2001]> Monday, December 31, 2001 9:24 AM> > Re: Qi regulation> > Jason,> > Conceptually, I think you're mixing apples and oranges. When thinking> in terms of CM, I would suggest you need to stay within the system. I> acknowledge this is not always easy for us Westerners who are pickled> in Western biomedicine, but, in my experience, it is the key to> superior CM.> > Bob> > , "" <@o...> wrote:> > B.Flaws (?) said something in the Benadryl discussions like:> Benadryl> > must have a qi regulating effect due to its ability to eliminate> pain.> > (Correct me if I'm wrong, I can't find the post). It seems, though,> > that many peoples' beliefs are very close to this- 'If a medicinal> stops> > pain it MUST regulate qi/ xue'. I question this (I am not saying> > Benadryl does not reg qi). What I wonder about are substances or> > (processes) that might just interfere with the nervous system/> receptor> > sites (or whatever) and just block a sensation of the pain, but not> > actually move any qi at all. The pain or pathological process/> lesion> > can be completely unchanged but one's perception might instantly> change> > due to administration of i.e. morphine (or something similar) Is the> qi> > being moved? If Qi is being moved, thus preventing the pain,> shouldn't> > the person show signs of healing in that area? Obviously when> powerful> > drugs wear off many times nothing has changed, and they are at> square> > one. If all this is true, understanding herbs in this way that> > eliminate pain/ (move qi/xue) would be very worthwhile. IS a given> herb> > actually moving qi, as traditional thought might suggest, or just> > masking some sensation. Yan hu suo might fall into the latter> category.> > So where there is pain there is stagnation, but can we backwards> travel> > and say if pain ceases then qi/xue must have moved. I am not sure.> We> > probably will have to discuss the nature of pain..> > One might question how accurate a gauge pain is to determine> the> > degree of stagnation. How do we explain 2 people with the same> injury,> > one is screaming with their pain 9 of 10, another feels nothing.> This> > might be important due to our current trend of attributing many> chronic> > and aging diseases to stagnation. IS the notion of "where there is> > pain, there is stagnation" an oversimplified statement? What does> this> > really mean? And when we eliminate pain what have we really done?> > Comments?> >> > -> Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 2, 2002 Jason, CM is a system, and, as a system, it only holds together when the elements of that system are manipulated in a self-consistent way. While CM and WM both describe the same body, they do so starting from very different premises (i.e., statements of fact). According to systems theory, if you try to reduce or describe one system in terms of a second, dissimilar system, one of the two systems fall apart and must be misrepresented. Therefore, what I was suggesting was that, when thinking with CM, one needs to stick within the system in a self-consistent way. Assumption one is not quite right. This again has to do with the Chinese language. What Chinese medicine says is that, " If there is pain, there is no free flow. " Lack of free flow (tong) may be due to stasis, stagnation, and impediment. However, it may also be due to vacuity and insufficiency. Therefore, " any substance which eliminates pain " does not necessarily move the qi. Qi-moving is a technical concept in CM as understood in Chinese. Depending on the pattern of pain, pain may be treated with qi-supplements, blood-nourishers, yin-enrichers, and yang-invigorators. While the net result may be the re-eastablishment of free flow and, therefore, the elimination of pain, categorically in CM, this is not also based on the principle of moving the qi (xing qi). That being said, no, I do not believe nor does the literature suggest that any substance which eliminates pain moves the qi. Bob , " " <@o...> wrote: > Bob, > > Could you explain exactly why we cannot supposedly mix these > 'apples and oranges'? And what exactly are the apples and oranges? > > Your (assumed) statements: (Based on: where there is pain there is lack > of flow): (correct me if I am wrong) > > 1. " Any substance that eliminates pain moves qi " Hence is a Qi mover. > (/xue) > > 2. Can I further say that you believe that " Any substance that > eliminates pain moves qi (in the area of the pain). " > > 3. Further " any process or action that eliminates pain moves qi (in the > area of pain) " > > First, I can currently only agree with the 1st statement in the sense > that all substances and actions move qi somewhere on some level. But I > cannot see how any substance that eliminates pain moves the qi in the > area of pain therefore eliminating the pain. (see previous post) > > Secondly, I am unsure I have ever read the above assumptions in CM > literature, and don't know if logic supports them. But let's assume > that somewhere is CM it is supported. > > Also there are many CM herbs that deal with pain and are not actually > said to move qi. Is this assumed? > > I personally (in this case) see no reason we must stay confined > strictly to a CM perspective, because looking at it from a western > understanding is precisely the point. I am challenging the basic > 'supposed statement of fact' or assumption based on the statement of > fact (see above). Personally I believe there are no facts. So let's > start from the premise that the statement previously mentioned about > pain is a theory or idea in CM. I think that with any theory, new > understanding of a given system, can either support or change it. > I am suggesting that with modern understanding the above > statements might not be adequate. I don't think there is any debate that > Chinese medical history is filled with examples of theories that did not > pan out or have been updated with 'new' understanding or 'new' beliefs > or concepts. And as far as integrated understanding of ideas, I thought > this was precisely the point in discussing benadryl, a combined > approach. > I am not ready to except anything as a fact, especially when > kept within its original system. AS the Chinese are currently doing, let > us challenge this idea from a modern (possibly more enhanced/ thorough) > understanding of pain in relation to medicinals / substances given to > alter pain. > Interestingly it seems (CM) qi regulators move qi and eliminate > pain in specific areas. Morphine, for example, has a systemic action. > Quite possibly since TCM had no substances as strong as morphine this > led to a slightly pedant view of pain and qi. This discussion begs an > understanding of not only qi but pain from a CM and western perspective, > Ken? > > Finally as a side exercise then, (in a completely CM system) let > us explain morphine as a qi regulator. > > Comments? > > - > > > > > pemachophel2001 [pemachophel2001] > > Monday, December 31, 2001 9:24 AM > > > > Re: Qi regulation > > > > Jason, > > > > Conceptually, I think you're mixing apples and oranges. When thinking > > in terms of CM, I would suggest you need to stay within the system. I > > acknowledge this is not always easy for us Westerners who are pickled > > in Western biomedicine, but, in my experience, it is the key to > > superior CM. > > > > Bob > > > > , " " <@o...> wrote: > > > B.Flaws (?) said something in the Benadryl discussions like: > > Benadryl > > > must have a qi regulating effect due to its ability to eliminate > > pain. > > > (Correct me if I'm wrong, I can't find the post). It seems, though, > > > that many peoples' beliefs are very close to this- 'If a medicinal > > stops > > > pain it MUST regulate qi/ xue'. I question this (I am not saying > > > Benadryl does not reg qi). What I wonder about are substances or > > > (processes) that might just interfere with the nervous system/ > > receptor > > > sites (or whatever) and just block a sensation of the pain, but not > > > actually move any qi at all. The pain or pathological process/ > > lesion > > > can be completely unchanged but one's perception might instantly > > change > > > due to administration of i.e. morphine (or something similar) Is the > > qi > > > being moved? If Qi is being moved, thus preventing the pain, > > shouldn't > > > the person show signs of healing in that area? Obviously when > > powerful > > > drugs wear off many times nothing has changed, and they are at > > square > > > one. If all this is true, understanding herbs in this way that > > > eliminate pain/ (move qi/xue) would be very worthwhile. IS a given > > herb > > > actually moving qi, as traditional thought might suggest, or just > > > masking some sensation. Yan hu suo might fall into the latter > > category. > > > So where there is pain there is stagnation, but can we backwards > > travel > > > and say if pain ceases then qi/xue must have moved. I am not sure. > > We > > > probably will have to discuss the nature of pain.. > > > One might question how accurate a gauge pain is to determine > > the > > > degree of stagnation. How do we explain 2 people with the same > > injury, > > > one is screaming with their pain 9 of 10, another feels nothing. > > This > > > might be important due to our current trend of attributing many > > chronic > > > and aging diseases to stagnation. IS the notion of " where there is > > > pain, there is stagnation " an oversimplified statement? What does > > this > > > really mean? And when we eliminate pain what have we really done? > > > Comments? > > > > > > - > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 2, 2002 Personally I believe there are no facts. >>>That is why I have also brought up my experience with "Acutely induced pain" which is a completely different animal than chronic pain. While much data suggest that states of anxiety (and thus all of Bob's analytical explanation of sensitivity can be correct in some patients) leads to greater sensitivity to pain, clinical experience however also shows that the experience of pain is probably one of the most complex and poorly understood human experiences (ask any OB as to experience in delivery of example, or look at studies on pain at different cultures). When one talks about such things as statement of fact etc., then there can not be exceptions. We then must be careful and be able to show that in fact that is the case (a bit of mix of apples and orange here i know). I understands Bob's view that one should think within a system i.e. think in TCM while talking or especially when using its modalities in treatment. However, I also feel very strongly that after doing 20 yr. of TCM there is nothing wrong with integrating thoughts. Especially when doing just that, one finds that truth is in the eye of the beholder too often. I especially recommend this to people that like to explore TCM's pathomechanics with their infinite possibilities. They often sound reasonable, fascinating deep, but clinically completely irrelevant, until after the clinical experiment is complete i.e. outcome. alon - Tuesday, January 01, 2002 8:00 PM RE: Re: Qi regulation Bob, Could you explain exactly why we cannot supposedly mix these'apples and oranges'? And what exactly are the apples and oranges?Your (assumed) statements: (Based on: where there is pain there is lackof flow): (correct me if I am wrong)1. "Any substance that eliminates pain moves qi" Hence is a Qi mover.(/xue)2. Can I further say that you believe that "Any substance thateliminates pain moves qi (in the area of the pain)."3. Further "any process or action that eliminates pain moves qi (in thearea of pain)"First, I can currently only agree with the 1st statement in the sensethat all substances and actions move qi somewhere on some level. But Icannot see how any substance that eliminates pain moves the qi in thearea of pain therefore eliminating the pain. (see previous post)Secondly, I am unsure I have ever read the above assumptions in CMliterature, and don't know if logic supports them. But let's assumethat somewhere is CM it is supported.Also there are many CM herbs that deal with pain and are not actuallysaid to move qi. Is this assumed? I personally (in this case) see no reason we must stay confinedstrictly to a CM perspective, because looking at it from a westernunderstanding is precisely the point. I am challenging the basic'supposed statement of fact' or assumption based on the statement offact (see above). Personally I believe there are no facts. So let'sstart from the premise that the statement previously mentioned aboutpain is a theory or idea in CM. I think that with any theory, newunderstanding of a given system, can either support or change it. I am suggesting that with modern understanding the abovestatements might not be adequate. I don't think there is any debate thatChinese medical history is filled with examples of theories that did notpan out or have been updated with 'new' understanding or 'new' beliefsor concepts. And as far as integrated understanding of ideas, I thoughtthis was precisely the point in discussing benadryl, a combinedapproach. I am not ready to except anything as a fact, especially whenkept within its original system. AS the Chinese are currently doing, letus challenge this idea from a modern (possibly more enhanced/ thorough)understanding of pain in relation to medicinals / substances given toalter pain. Interestingly it seems (CM) qi regulators move qi and eliminatepain in specific areas. Morphine, for example, has a systemic action. Quite possibly since TCM had no substances as strong as morphine thisled to a slightly pedant view of pain and qi. This discussion begs anunderstanding of not only qi but pain from a CM and western perspective,Ken? Finally as a side exercise then, (in a completely CM system) letus explain morphine as a qi regulator. Comments? -> > pemachophel2001 [pemachophel2001]> Monday, December 31, 2001 9:24 AM> > Re: Qi regulation> > Jason,> > Conceptually, I think you're mixing apples and oranges. When thinking> in terms of CM, I would suggest you need to stay within the system. I> acknowledge this is not always easy for us Westerners who are pickled> in Western biomedicine, but, in my experience, it is the key to> superior CM.> > Bob> > , "" <@o...> wrote:> > B.Flaws (?) said something in the Benadryl discussions like:> Benadryl> > must have a qi regulating effect due to its ability to eliminate> pain.> > (Correct me if I'm wrong, I can't find the post). It seems, though,> > that many peoples' beliefs are very close to this- 'If a medicinal> stops> > pain it MUST regulate qi/ xue'. I question this (I am not saying> > Benadryl does not reg qi). What I wonder about are substances or> > (processes) that might just interfere with the nervous system/> receptor> > sites (or whatever) and just block a sensation of the pain, but not> > actually move any qi at all. The pain or pathological process/> lesion> > can be completely unchanged but one's perception might instantly> change> > due to administration of i.e. morphine (or something similar) Is the> qi> > being moved? If Qi is being moved, thus preventing the pain,> shouldn't> > the person show signs of healing in that area? Obviously when> powerful> > drugs wear off many times nothing has changed, and they are at> square> > one. If all this is true, understanding herbs in this way that> > eliminate pain/ (move qi/xue) would be very worthwhile. IS a given> herb> > actually moving qi, as traditional thought might suggest, or just> > masking some sensation. Yan hu suo might fall into the latter> category.> > So where there is pain there is stagnation, but can we backwards> travel> > and say if pain ceases then qi/xue must have moved. I am not sure.> We> > probably will have to discuss the nature of pain..> > One might question how accurate a gauge pain is to determine> the> > degree of stagnation. How do we explain 2 people with the same> injury,> > one is screaming with their pain 9 of 10, another feels nothing.> This> > might be important due to our current trend of attributing many> chronic> > and aging diseases to stagnation. IS the notion of "where there is> > pain, there is stagnation" an oversimplified statement? What does> this> > really mean? And when we eliminate pain what have we really done?> > Comments?> >> > -> Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 2, 2002 , " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote: > Bob, > > I would argue that despite the correctness > of the bulk of your comments on pain, there > is a basic misapplication of theory at work > here. This gets at Alon's question as to > what differences can be attained from looking > into the language and its relationship to > the thought that has gone into the development > of medical theory, strategy, methods, and > substances over the centuries. > > I'll go through your statements as carefully > as I can, but I want to preface those detailed > comments with a general one. Despite the > fact of the definite and characteristic structure > of the theories of Chinese medicine, and here > I am thinking of Unschuld's phrase, the medicine > of systematic correspondence, there is no > statemnt, assertion, presumption or requirement > that any part of theory or indeed the whole > body of theory ever apply to any particular > situation or circumstance. > > Theory in Chinese medicine is not a collation > of laws, but rather the aggregation of long > and careful observations of phenomena. The > phenomena themselves are first and last and > always considered as being of senior importance, > so to speak, and always take precedence over > theory. > > That is to say, Chinese medical theories ought > never be stretched and bent to match situations. > They function best when they reveal to the user > a pattern of predictable relationships and dynamics > that when found to be present not only confirm the > theoretical presumptions but open a doorway to > intervention. > > When no such match occurs or is found, the > basic theoretical principle is: use another theory. > The effort to adapt a theory to a situation or, > perhaps worse, to adapt a situation to a theory, > is needless because there is no presumption that > anything at all about theory is true or applicable > to any given situation. We do, after all, live > in a fairly unpredictable universe, our tendency > to represent it as orderly and well understood notwithstanding. > Despite the very best formulations of human theorizing > about nature, it is nature that always has a surprise > or two in store for humans. > > Chinese philosophy recognizes the relative importance > of theory to reality, for example in the passage > from Chapter 25 of the Dao De Jing that states that > there are four phenomena of greatness in the world > and that mankind is one of them. Man follows the earth. > The earth follows heaven. Heaven follows the dao4. > And dao4 follows things themselves (i.e. nature). > > I would argue that the dao4 of medicine relies > upon this same set of greatnesses. > > Ken, I completely agree that different (even antithetical) theories in CM medicine are used to describe different situations. However, I'm not aware of lots of different theories about pain. > > > > There is a single statement about pain in CM which is bedrock > theory. > > If there is pain, there is no free flow (tong ze bu tong). > > I'm at a disadvantage at the moment > of having no dictionary to hand. Can > you clarify what these terms are? > > I'm presuming that you're referring to > the old saying that says: > > tong1 ze2 bu2 tong4 > tong4 ze2 bu2 tong1 > > where there's connection there's no pain > where there's pain there's no connection > > If this is correct and the first tong is jiao1 tong1 > de tong1, then the word " flow " is an > interprative translation that, while > not at all incorrect, emphasizes one > particular aspect of the concept of > tong1, flow, and overlooks a more basic > and I believe in this instance relevant > sense of the word, i.e. to connect. Now, it might > be argued that the implications of > " connection " include the provision > of a pathway for " flow " , but the two > English words clearly mean something > different from each other. If we're talking > about the same phrase, if it's the tong1 that I'm > thinking of, then I'd suggest the connection > idea over the idea of flow. From the perspective of > trying to identify a generalized etiology > of " pain, " therefore, we might be guided > to conclude that the phrase you've cited > means that pain results from broken or > missing connections in the body, i.e. > things that should be in touch, in communication > and interchange with each other are not, > hence, pain. I agree tong may be translated as " connection " as opposed to free flow. However, I suggest we need to query several native Chinese-speaking practitioners of CM and ask them which of these two translations in their opinion fits best here. I'm going to be surprised if they say connect or communication. Communication seems way too abstract here and does not, to my mind, provide a definite, concrete, visualizable mechanism for the causation of pain. Further, would the majority of Chinese CM practitioners characterize the most famous CM medicinals for the treatment of pain as being " connectors " or " flow-freers " ? I'm thinking here of meds such as Chuan Xiong, Yan Hu Suo, Mu Xiang, Ru Xiang, Mo Yao, Bai Zhi, etc. This is one place where your penchant for more metaphysical, philosophical definitions of CM terms seems a bit guo fen. > > That means > > that any and all pain has to do with a lack of free flow. When one > > puts a needle in a patient's body and there is a sensation of pain, > > that means that, for as long as the pain is felt, there is some > > blockage of the free flow. If the pain is just a sharp, transient > > prick as the needle pierces the skin, I would interpret this as a > > transient blackage of the movement of the exterior defensive (wai > > wei) and the blood in the sun luo or grandchild network vessels. > > Well, you're certainly dead on when you > mention later on that there are multiple layers > to this discussion. I find pain to be one > of the most challenging concepts in medicine. > > Not the least of the challenges involved in > understanding and dealing with pain is the > fact of its highly subjective nature. One > individual's pain is another's pleasure and > vice versa. Again, let's keep this common sense. People have been talking about " injuries, " presumably such as stubbing one's toe or cutting oneself. I completely agree that the sensation of pain is different from invidual to individual. But what we have been talking about is why, in CM terms, some people seem to experience pain more acutely than others. But however a person experiences > and defines and talks about their pain, I > would stress that rather than assume that > " any and all pain has to do with a lack of free flow " > we might be more accurate to consider that > in the clinical assessment of symptomatic pain, > we can expect to find productive means of > intervention if we look for broken connections. > > I would further suggest that one of the > problems with Yuri's question is that it > does not clearly identify what he wants > to contrast and that you end up comparing > two class of phenomena which are not, strictly > speaking comparable. When an acupuncture needle > is inserted, according to the theory of > de2 qi4, there will be one or more sensations > that occur, signalling the " arrival of qi4. " > > De2 qi4 sensations are not really categorized > in the same way as symptomatic pains and therefore > trying to describe or explain them with the > theory of pain results in a misfit. This is not > to say that during acupuncture a patient may > not experience pain of the category that > would fit into symptomatic pains and therefore > be properly addressed with the theory you > mention. But this would tend to be viewed > as diverging from the norms of clinical > experience, i.e. an adverse perhaps even > iatrogenic response. > > The acculturation to Chinese medicine is nowhere > more well illustrated in my experience than > this very subject of pain and especially > sensations associated with de2 qi4. When I > first got to China and for a few years at > least, I was repeatedly amazed to find > patients in the clinic who begged for > and demanded stronger sensation from the > needle. The image remains vivid with me > until today of an elderly woman sitting > in front of me while I inserted a big > Chinese needle into her face, berating > me for being a weakling and insisting > that I give her some zhang1 sensation > at once or she was going to get the > nice young Chinese intern to treat her. I completely agree with what you've just said. Mea culpa. I should never have used acupuncture as an example of pain. The de qi sensation is, according to Chinese, ipso facto, bu tong, not pain. I completely agree. However, the sharp sting of the needle piercing the skin, if it is felt, is pain according to Chinese, and, therefore, might still be game for a putative CM descriptioin. > > Here we come to a crossing of some of > the many layers that you cautioned about. > An typical American patient receiving > acupuncture would be halfway to their > lawyer's office with dreams of retiring > on the proceeds from the malpractice suit > that they could press after having been > treated with 1/10th the sensation that > this little old woman had already reported. > > Pain is not only a highly personal and > subjective things, but the pathways that > lead to this highly individualized reality > of pain are intricately woven into cultural > fabrics that patients grow in and with. > > Here it might be worth mentioning that > the multiple meanings of a word like " tong1 " > imparts a flexibility and adaptive quality > to the Chinese written language which this > type of theory exploits. That is to say > that the flexibility of mind that is rooted > in the way we understand Chinese words extends > to the way that we apply theoretical principles > built from such linguistic building blocks. > > I believe it is this flexibility and adaptive > quality of the language that some tend to > incorrectly interpret as meaning or implying > that there can never be standard translations. > To the contrary, this kind of flexibility has > always carried with it a commensurate set of > restrictions and guidelines for how meaning > is to be gotten from words and terms and > phrases. There is thus both an enormous > amount of freedom as well as restraint with which > one must become conversant in order to construct > adequate personal understanding of the words > and the theories, which are when all is said > and done, just collections of words. > > > > > If it is a more long-lasting aching and soreness, then I would > > interpret this as the needle's stimulation of an accumulation of qi > in > > the area. As long as the aching and soreness are felt, the qi in > that > > area is not completely free-flowing. I think one can visualize this > as > > building up pressure in an area which eventually becomes so great > as > > to burst through whatever blockage may be impeding free flow. > > I don't agree with this, and again I think > its fault lies in being rigidly bound to > a single intrepretation of what qi4 means > as it " flows " through the body. This > characterization presumes as well as > assigns an " energy-like " nature of qi4, > as if it were entirely substantive. > > In a > > sense, we are creating a temporary lack of free flow in order to > build > > up pressure to break through a pathological free flow. (I've never > > expressed this before. So I hope you get what I mean.) > > I see the logic of what you're saying, but > I once again find the underlying presumptions > to be unsound precisely at the level of what > qi4 is. If qi is not something that flows through the channels and network vessels, why did the Chinese take such great effects to choose words and consciously liken it to river, streams, canals, etc.? Further, it is Chinese themselves who speak of liu2 qi4, the flow of qi, as in Gong Ding-xian's famous formula Shi Liu Wei Liu Qi Yin (Sixteen Flavors Flow the Qi Drink). The definitions of liu in The Pinyin Chinese-English Dictionary are: 1) flow (as in the river flows east); 2)moving from place to place; 3) spread, circulate; 4) change for th worse, degenrate; 5) banish, send into exile; 6) as a noun, a stream of water; 7)something resembling a stream of water; 8)class, rate, grade. If this dictionary is not scholarly enough, Matthews gives: 1) to flow, to drift, to circulate; 2) a current; 3) to descend; 4) unstable, weak. > > > > But we need to be careful here. There are two issues that appear to > > be conflated in your response to my posting. One is the production > of > > pain and the other is the sensation of pain. These are not one and > the > > same thing. As stated above, pain is the subjective sensation of > lack > > of free flow. However, as well all know, some people are more or > less > > sensative to pain. > > Yeah. Absolutely. I think there are far more than > just two issues. > > As I said yesterday, sensation is a function of qi. > > I believe that those who are more sensitive have more easily > stirred > > spirit qi than others. > > I'm still not clear what this means. > Can you elaborate? Sensation, as a function of consciousness, is a function of the spirit brilliance which is nothing other than the conscious functions of the spirit qi. For qi to function normally, it must move. Movement/moving is one of the defining characteristics of qi (along with warmth/warming, transforming, defending, and containing in the sense of holding and securing). If the spirit qi is blocked or hindered from moving, its function is decreased or lowered. In terms of sensation, this may cause lack or diminishment of sensation. As an extension of this, I was possiting that, based on my clinical experience, those who are more sensitive than others to physical pain seem to me to be those in whom their spirit qi tends to be bu an, disquieted. Disquieted (bu an) and frenetically stirring appear to me to be synonyms in the CM psychiatric literature, although there does seem to be some quantitative difference in meaning. Nevertheless, even in CM gyncecology, there is the identification with disquiet with abnormal, i.e., excessive, stirring (as in tai dong bu an). Based on this line of thought, I then suggested several mechanisms which cause disquiet and stirring of the spirit qi. > > Then I went on to suggest two or three basic > > mechanisms for some people's spirit qi being more easily stirred. > > > > So what we have here is a multi-leveled discussion, and I think > it's > > important to keep the various sections of this discussion separate. > > However, I only know of one definitive statement in Chinese > medicine > > about pain regardless of the type of pain that is under discussion. > > " If there is pain, there is no free flow. " If one accepts that > basic > > premise, what I refer to as a CM statement of fact, then one must > > discuss all types and instances of pain in terms of CM in the light > of > > that basic premise. > > But again, we ought not use theories designed > to diagnose clinical, symptomatic pains to understand > the mechanism, causes, importance, and use of > de2 qi4 sensations. I agree my choice of examples was inappropriate. I did definitely forget that, in Chinese, de qi is " not pain, " I picked that example because I assumed we all had lots of experience with different patients' sensitivity to needles and even the Nei Jing discusses that difference. So I was looking for a shared experience. However, I still think my overall explanation differences of sensitivity to pain is a potentially correct and useful CM one. For sure, this is only my own ratiocination, and it would be interesting if a number of " old Chinese doctors " (lao zhong yi) looked it over and critiqued it. > > I suspect that there are several interpretations > out there of these phenomena, terms, etc., and > I by no means consider that my understanding is > complete. I'll appreciate reading what you or > others have to add, correct, and so on. > > > Ken Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 2, 2002 Jim, I have never seen the word tong4, pain, used to describe emotional suffering in a Chinese language CM source. Typically, this is described as ku2, bitterness, or the specific negative emotion is named. Personally, I would not apply the saying about pain to emotional suffering. To me, that would be out of context. Bob , " jramholz " <jramholz> wrote: > Ken: > > Would this also apply to emotional pain in respect to 5-Phases? > > Jim Ramholz > > > > > > tong1 ze2 bu2 tong4 > > tong4 ze2 bu2 tong1 > > > > where there's connection there's no pain > > where there's pain there's no connection > > > > If this is correct and the first tong is jiao1 tong1 > > de tong1, then the word " flow " is an > > interprative translation that, while > > not at all incorrect, emphasizes one > > particular aspect of the concept of > > tong1, flow, and overlooks a more basic > > and I believe in this instance relevant > > sense of the word, i.e. to connect. Now, it might > > be argued that the implications of > > " connection " include the provision > > of a pathway for " flow " , but the two > > English words clearly mean something > > different from each other. If we're talking > > about the same phrase, if it's the tong1 that I'm > > thinking of, then I'd suggest the connection > > idea over the idea of flow. From the perspective of > > trying to identify a generalized etiology > > of " pain, " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 2, 2002 I believe it is this flexibility and adaptivequality of the language that some tend toincorrectly interpret as meaning or implyingthat there can never be standard translations.To the contrary, this kind of flexibility hasalways carried with it a commensurate set ofrestrictions and guidelines for how meaningis to be gotten from words and terms andphrases. There is thus both an enormousamount of freedom as well as restraint with which one must become conversant in order to constructadequate personal understanding of the wordsand the theories, which are when all is saidand done, just collections of words.>>>>Ken, Thank you very interesting. I would suggest then that we should write free flow/connection/.......what ever is applicable. Connection however is very interesting because it integrates better with many modern theories on pain Alon - dragon90405 Tuesday, January 01, 2002 10:20 PM Re: Qi regulation Bob,I would argue that despite the correctnessof the bulk of your comments on pain, thereis a basic misapplication of theory at workhere. This gets at Alon's question as towhat differences can be attained from lookinginto the language and its relationship tothe thought that has gone into the developmentof medical theory, strategy, methods, andsubstances over the centuries.I'll go through your statements as carefullyas I can, but I want to preface those detailedcomments with a general one. Despite thefact of the definite and characteristic structureof the theories of Chinese medicine, and hereI am thinking of Unschuld's phrase, the medicineof systematic correspondence, there is nostatemnt, assertion, presumption or requirementthat any part of theory or indeed the wholebody of theory ever apply to any particularsituation or circumstance.Theory in Chinese medicine is not a collationof laws, but rather the aggregation of longand careful observations of phenomena. Thephenomena themselves are first and last andalways considered as being of senior importance,so to speak, and always take precedence overtheory.That is to say, Chinese medical theories oughtnever be stretched and bent to match situations.They function best when they reveal to the usera pattern of predictable relationships and dynamicsthat when found to be present not only confirm thetheoretical presumptions but open a doorway tointervention.When no such match occurs or is found, thebasic theoretical principle is: use another theory.The effort to adapt a theory to a situation or,perhaps worse, to adapt a situation to a theory,is needless because there is no presumption thatanything at all about theory is true or applicableto any given situation. We do, after all, livein a fairly unpredictable universe, our tendencyto represent it as orderly and well understood notwithstanding.Despite the very best formulations of human theorizingabout nature, it is nature that always has a surpriseor two in store for humans.Chinese philosophy recognizes the relative importanceof theory to reality, for example in the passagefrom Chapter 25 of the Dao De Jing that states that there are four phenomena of greatness in the worldand that mankind is one of them. Man follows the earth.The earth follows heaven. Heaven follows the dao4.And dao4 follows things themselves (i.e. nature).I would argue that the dao4 of medicine reliesupon this same set of greatnesses.> > There is a single statement about pain in CM which is bedrock theory. > If there is pain, there is no free flow (tong ze bu tong).I'm at a disadvantage at the momentof having no dictionary to hand. Canyou clarify what these terms are?I'm presuming that you're referring tothe old saying that says:tong1 ze2 bu2 tong4tong4 ze2 bu2 tong1where there's connection there's no painwhere there's pain there's no connectionIf this is correct and the first tong is jiao1 tong1de tong1, then the word "flow" is aninterprative translation that, whilenot at all incorrect, emphasizes oneparticular aspect of the concept oftong1, flow, and overlooks a more basicand I believe in this instance relevantsense of the word, i.e. to connect. Now, it mightbe argued that the implications of"connection" include the provisionof a pathway for "flow", but the twoEnglish words clearly mean somethingdifferent from each other. If we're talkingabout the same phrase, if it's the tong1 that I'mthinking of, then I'd suggest the connectionidea over the idea of flow. From the perspective oftrying to identify a generalized etiologyof "pain," therefore, we might be guidedto conclude that the phrase you've citedmeans that pain results from broken ormissing connections in the body, i.e.things that should be in touch, in communicationand interchange with each other are not,hence, pain.That means > that any and all pain has to do with a lack of free flow. When one > puts a needle in a patient's body and there is a sensation of pain, > that means that, for as long as the pain is felt, there is some > blockage of the free flow. If the pain is just a sharp, transient > prick as the needle pierces the skin, I would interpret this as a > transient blackage of the movement of the exterior defensive (wai > wei) and the blood in the sun luo or grandchild network vessels. Well, you're certainly dead on when youmention later on that there are multiple layersto this discussion. I find pain to be oneof the most challenging concepts in medicine.Not the least of the challenges involved inunderstanding and dealing with pain is thefact of its highly subjective nature. Oneindividual's pain is another's pleasure andvice versa. But however a person experiencesand defines and talks about their pain, I would stress that rather than assume that"any and all pain has to do with a lack of free flow"we might be more accurate to consider thatin the clinical assessment of symptomatic pain,we can expect to find productive means ofintervention if we look for broken connections.I would further suggest that one of theproblems with Yuri's question is that itdoes not clearly identify what he wantsto contrast and that you end up comparingtwo class of phenomena which are not, strictlyspeaking comparable. When an acupuncture needleis inserted, according to the theory ofde2 qi4, there will be one or more sensationsthat occur, signalling the "arrival of qi4."De2 qi4 sensations are not really categorizedin the same way as symptomatic pains and thereforetrying to describe or explain them with thetheory of pain results in a misfit. This is notto say that during acupuncture a patient maynot experience pain of the category thatwould fit into symptomatic pains and thereforebe properly addressed with the theory youmention. But this would tend to be viewedas diverging from the norms of clinicalexperience, i.e. an adverse perhaps eveniatrogenic response.The acculturation to Chinese medicine is nowheremore well illustrated in my experience thanthis very subject of pain and especiallysensations associated with de2 qi4. When Ifirst got to China and for a few years atleast, I was repeatedly amazed to findpatients in the clinic who begged forand demanded stronger sensation from theneedle. The image remains vivid with meuntil today of an elderly woman sittingin front of me while I inserted a bigChinese needle into her face, beratingme for being a weakling and insisting that I give her some zhang1 sensationat once or she was going to get thenice young Chinese intern to treat her.Here we come to a crossing of some ofthe many layers that you cautioned about.An typical American patient receivingacupuncture would be halfway to theirlawyer's office with dreams of retiringon the proceeds from the malpractice suitthat they could press after having beentreated with 1/10th the sensation thatthis little old woman had already reported.Pain is not only a highly personal andsubjective things, but the pathways thatlead to this highly individualized realityof pain are intricately woven into culturalfabrics that patients grow in and with.Here it might be worth mentioning thatthe multiple meanings of a word like "tong1"imparts a flexibility and adaptive qualityto the Chinese written language which thistype of theory exploits. That is to say that the flexibility of mind that is rootedin the way we understand Chinese words extendsto the way that we apply theoretical principlesbuilt from such linguistic building blocks.I believe it is this flexibility and adaptivequality of the language that some tend toincorrectly interpret as meaning or implyingthat there can never be standard translations.To the contrary, this kind of flexibility hasalways carried with it a commensurate set ofrestrictions and guidelines for how meaningis to be gotten from words and terms andphrases. There is thus both an enormousamount of freedom as well as restraint with which one must become conversant in order to constructadequate personal understanding of the wordsand the theories, which are when all is saidand done, just collections of words.> > If it is a more long-lasting aching and soreness, then I would > interpret this as the needle's stimulation of an accumulation of qi in > the area. As long as the aching and soreness are felt, the qi in that > area is not completely free-flowing. I think one can visualize this as > building up pressure in an area which eventually becomes so great as > to burst through whatever blockage may be impeding free flow.I don't agree with this, and again I thinkits fault lies in being rigidly bound toa single intrepretation of what qi4 meansas it "flows" through the body. Thischaracterization presumes as well as assigns an "energy-like" nature of qi4, as if it were entirely substantive.In a > sense, we are creating a temporary lack of free flow in order to build > up pressure to break through a pathological free flow. (I've never > expressed this before. So I hope you get what I mean.)I see the logic of what you're saying, butI once again find the underlying presumptionsto be unsound precisely at the level of whatqi4 is.> > But we need to be careful here. There are two issues that appear to > be conflated in your response to my posting. One is the production of > pain and the other is the sensation of pain. These are not one and the > same thing. As stated above, pain is the subjective sensation of lack > of free flow. However, as well all know, some people are more or less > sensative to pain.Yeah. Absolutely. I think there are far more thanjust two issues. As I said yesterday, sensation is a function of qi. > I believe that those who are more sensitive have more easily stirred > spirit qi than others.I'm still not clear what this means.Can you elaborate?Then I went on to suggest two or three basic > mechanisms for some people's spirit qi being more easily stirred.> > So what we have here is a multi-leveled discussion, and I think it's > important to keep the various sections of this discussion separate. > However, I only know of one definitive statement in Chinese medicine > about pain regardless of the type of pain that is under discussion. > "If there is pain, there is no free flow." If one accepts that basic > premise, what I refer to as a CM statement of fact, then one must > discuss all types and instances of pain in terms of CM in the light of > that basic premise.But again, we ought not use theories designedto diagnose clinical, symptomatic pains to understandthe mechanism, causes, importance, and use ofde2 qi4 sensations.I suspect that there are several interpretationsout there of these phenomena, terms, etc., andI by no means consider that my understanding iscomplete. I'll appreciate reading what you orothers have to add, correct, and so on.KenChinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 2, 2002 Alon, I don't think the issue is of integrating thoughts. The issue is seamless integration, in other words, where one follows through in one train of thought before applying another. TCM pattern differentiation is a system of logic, and as Bob Flaws points out, applying dissimilar systems to explain each other leads to one system falling apart (according to systems theory). We see this quite a bit in modern approaches such as " New Age " thinking, or eclectic approaches to alternative medicine. Clinical phenomena are not thought through in one system completely, leading to a smattering of superficial concepts thrown together to produce a mythological 'diagnosis'. Look at concepts such as 'detoxing the liver', and the attempts of some CM practitioners to do so based on a diagnosis of gan qi zhi/liver qi stagnation or the like. and then using olive oil, cascara sagrada and lemon juice to do so. It takes much skill to integrate two medical systems, but it can be done. Several great Chinese physicians, such as Zhang Xi-chun have succeeded in doing so. One applies information from one system to enhance the logic of the other. It is where one draws diagnostic conclusions that one has to be consistent and hew to one system of medical logic. I think Bob's new book, " Treatment of Modern Western Diseases with " does a very good job of doing so. On Wednesday, January 2, 2002, at 09:59 AM, ALON MARCUS wrote: > Personally I believe there are no facts. > > I understands Bob's view that one should think within a system i.e. > think in TCM while talking or especially when using its modalities in > treatment. However, I also feel very strongly that after doing 20 yr. > of TCM there is nothing wrong with integrating thoughts. Especially > when doing just that, one finds that truth is in the eye of the > beholder too often. I especially recommend this to people that like to > explore TCM's pathomechanics with their infinite possibilities. They > often sound reasonable, fascinating deep, but clinically completely > irrelevant, until after the clinical experiment is complete i.e. > outcome. > alon > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 2, 2002 Bob: Thanks for your response. I was thinking of a number of pulse patterns where flow/connection is inhibited between phases and wondering how to describe it in a way that is accessible from TCM. If you have any other thoughts on these details, I'd be interested to hear them. Jim - pemachophel2001 Wednesday, January 02, 2002 11:35 AM Re: Qi regulation Jim,I have never seen the word tong4, pain, used to describe emotional suffering in a Chinese language CM source. Typically, this is described as ku2, bitterness, or the specific negative emotion is named. Personally, I would not apply the saying about pain to emotional suffering. To me, that would be out of context.Bob , "jramholz" <jramholz> wrote:> Ken:> > Would this also apply to emotional pain in respect to 5-Phases?> > Jim Ramholz> > > > > > tong1 ze2 bu2 tong4> > tong4 ze2 bu2 tong1> > > > where there's connection there's no pain> > where there's pain there's no connection> > > > If this is correct and the first tong is jiao1 tong1> > de tong1, then the word "flow" is an> > interprative translation that, while> > not at all incorrect, emphasizes one> > particular aspect of the concept of> > tong1, flow, and overlooks a more basic> > and I believe in this instance relevant> > sense of the word, i.e. to connect. Now, it might> > be argued that the implications of> > "connection" include the provision> > of a pathway for "flow", but the two> > English words clearly mean something> > different from each other. If we're talking> > about the same phrase, if it's the tong1 that I'm> > thinking of, then I'd suggest the connection> > idea over the idea of flow. From the perspective of> > trying to identify a generalized etiology> > of "pain,"Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 2, 2002 applying dissimilar systems to explain each other leads to one system falling apart >>>That is not what I am saying. That is a big mistake. I am talking at clinical observations only. When one uses both CM thinking hat and modern biomed one can sometime get a perspective of clinical reality that is not accessible by either one alone. To try and mix Theories is foolish. Alon - Wednesday, January 02, 2002 11:03 AM Re: Re: Qi regulation Alon,I don't think the issue is of integrating thoughts. The issue is seamless integration, in other words, where one follows through in one train of thought before applying another. TCM pattern differentiation is a system of logic, and as Bob Flaws points out, applying dissimilar systems to explain each other leads to one system falling apart (according to systems theory). We see this quite a bit in modern approaches such as "New Age" thinking, or eclectic approaches to alternative medicine. Clinical phenomena are not thought through in one system completely, leading to a smattering of superficial concepts thrown together to produce a mythological 'diagnosis'. Look at concepts such as 'detoxing the liver', and the attempts of some CM practitioners to do so based on a diagnosis of gan qi zhi/liver qi stagnation or the like. and then using olive oil, cascara sagrada and lemon juice to do so.It takes much skill to integrate two medical systems, but it can be done. Several great Chinese physicians, such as Zhang Xi-chun have succeeded in doing so. One applies information from one system to enhance the logic of the other. It is where one draws diagnostic conclusions that one has to be consistent and hew to one system of medical logic.I think Bob's new book, "Treatment of Modern Western Diseases with " does a very good job of doing so.On Wednesday, January 2, 2002, at 09:59 AM, ALON MARCUS wrote: Personally I believe there are no facts.I understands Bob's view that one should think within a system i.e. think in TCM while talking or especially when using its modalities in treatment. However, I also feel very strongly that after doing 20 yr. of TCM there is nothing wrong with integrating thoughts. Especially when doing just that, one finds that truth is in the eye of the beholder too often. I especially recommend this to people that like to explore TCM's pathomechanics with their infinite possibilities. They often sound reasonable, fascinating deep, but clinically completely irrelevant, until after the clinical experiment is complete i.e. outcome.alon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 2, 2002 Jim, I just checked a couple of Chinese dictionaries. The primary meaning of tong is pain as in stomach pain (i.e., stomachache), throat pain (as in sore throat), head pain (as in headache), etc. In other words, physical pain. As a compound term, bei tong (literally sorrow and pain) means deep sorrow or grief. However, I don't ever remember seeing this compound term in any Chinese medical literature. Sorry, I have no idea how to express the pulse images you speak of in standard CM terminology. Since Korean pulse examination systems were written about by Koreans in Chinese even relatively lately, I would think that the CM terminology should knowable. In any case, that's where I'd go to research that particular question -- Korean medical books written in Chinese. Bob , " OMJournal Ramholz " <OMJournal@m...> wrote: > Bob: > > Thanks for your response. I was thinking of a number of pulse patterns where flow/connection is inhibited between phases and wondering how to describe it in a way that is accessible from TCM. If you have any other thoughts on these details, I'd be interested to hear them. > > Jim > > - > pemachophel2001 > Wednesday, January 02, 2002 11:35 AM > > Re: Qi regulation > > Jim, > > I have never seen the word tong4, pain, used to describe emotional > suffering in a Chinese language CM source. Typically, this is > described as ku2, bitterness, or the specific negative emotion is > named. Personally, I would not apply the saying about pain to > emotional suffering. To me, that would be out of context. > > Bob > > , " jramholz " <jramholz> wrote: > > Ken: > > > > Would this also apply to emotional pain in respect to 5-Phases? > > > > Jim Ramholz > > > > > > > > > > > tong1 ze2 bu2 tong4 > > > tong4 ze2 bu2 tong1 > > > > > > where there's connection there's no pain > > > where there's pain there's no connection > > > > > > If this is correct and the first tong is jiao1 tong1 > > > de tong1, then the word " flow " is an > > > interprative translation that, while > > > not at all incorrect, emphasizes one > > > particular aspect of the concept of > > > tong1, flow, and overlooks a more basic > > > and I believe in this instance relevant > > > sense of the word, i.e. to connect. Now, it might > > > be argued that the implications of > > > " connection " include the provision > > > of a pathway for " flow " , but the two > > > English words clearly mean something > > > different from each other. If we're talking > > > about the same phrase, if it's the tong1 that I'm > > > thinking of, then I'd suggest the connection > > > idea over the idea of flow. From the perspective of > > > trying to identify a generalized etiology > > > of " pain, " > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 2, 2002 Ken, I replied to some of your points earlier today. I'm eager to read your response. However, I will be out of my office all day tomorrow doing a Leonardo Process for the Blue Poppy 2002 business plan. So I won't be chiming in again till Friday. I'm very interested in this question of flow of no flow of the qi and look forward to rejoining the conversation then. Bob , " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote: > Jim, > > > Would this also apply to emotional pain in respect to 5-Phases? > > The issue of emotional pain lies in that > realm of the manifold layers that Bob Flaws > cautioned about. So I want to make sure > that I clearly understand what your intention > is here. > > Does the old saying apply to emotional pain? > > Do the points about the diagnosis of pain > I made apply to emotional pain? > > Certainly five phases applies to the > assessment and treatment of emotional > pain, since the pain of grief is so > different from the pain of terror. > Each affects a different organic > system according to five phase theory > and produces different feelings, different > characteristic changes in qi4. > > Just as an aside, I think that not only > a clearer understanding of Chinese words > but English words as well can aid in > the understanding and use of such key > terms. For example, knowing that the > Greek root of the English word " pain " > means " penalty " informs a certain understanding > of what pain is, particularly when we consider > that cultural dimension of the experience > of pain. > > > > Can you clarify and/or elaborate > on your question? > > Ken > > > > > > > > > tong1 ze2 bu2 tong4 > > > tong4 ze2 bu2 tong1 > > > > > > where there's connection there's no pain > > > where there's pain there's no connection > > > > > > If this is correct and the first tong is jiao1 tong1 > > > de tong1, then the word " flow " is an > > > interprative translation that, while > > > not at all incorrect, emphasizes one > > > particular aspect of the concept of > > > tong1, flow, and overlooks a more basic > > > and I believe in this instance relevant > > > sense of the word, i.e. to connect. Now, it might > > > be argued that the implications of > > > " connection " include the provision > > > of a pathway for " flow " , but the two > > > English words clearly mean something > > > different from each other. If we're talking > > > about the same phrase, if it's the tong1 that I'm > > > thinking of, then I'd suggest the connection > > > idea over the idea of flow. From the perspective of > > > trying to identify a generalized etiology > > > of " pain, " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 2, 2002 Bob, > I completely agree that different (even antithetical) theories in CM > medicine are used to describe different situations. However, I'm not > aware of lots of different theories about pain. That wasn't really the point I was making, but there is indeed a good deal more theoretical material in Chinese medicine on the subject of pain. And another series of vivid images in my memory consist of seeing and hearing Chinese patients talk about their pains. Most American patients I've met, when asked about the quality of their pain, reply with some version of, " Huh? " The American acculturation to pain is quite different from the Chinese. Here I just want to re-emphasize what I said yesterday about the highly individual and personal...even private nature of pain, and about the nontheless cultural dynamic in how an individual goes about defining and experiencing pain. Chinese patients, at least the ones I've met in Chinese clinics, tend to be quite articulate about the character and various qualities of their pain, reflecting the traditional ideas about what pain is and means. Even the bulk of them, who could probably not accruately repeat the theoretical considerations, still recognize that the precise location, nature, and behavior of their pain are important bits of data that the doctor needs to have in order to complete an accurate diagnosis. There are various kinds of pain identified by traditonal theory, and the meaning and implications of each are indeed quite important in both diagnosis and treatment. > > > > > > > There is a single statement about pain in CM which is bedrock > > theory. > > > If there is pain, there is no free flow (tong ze bu tong). > > > > I'm at a disadvantage at the moment > > of having no dictionary to hand. Can > > you clarify what these terms are? > > > > I'm presuming that you're referring to > > the old saying that says: > > > > tong1 ze2 bu2 tong4 > > tong4 ze2 bu2 tong1 > > > > where there's connection there's no pain > > where there's pain there's no connection > I agree tong may be translated as " connection " as opposed to free > flow. However, I suggest we need to query several native > Chinese-speaking practitioners of CM and ask them which of these two > translations in their opinion fits best here. Well, we can certainly do this. In fact, I engage in this sort of questioning all the time. I just gave a talk at the systems science forum at Beijing Normal University and one of the things that came up, as it always seems to, is how I would define qi4 in English with just one word. As I've said here in the past, I choose the word connectivity as a starting point to answer that question. Several of the scientists in the room were quite familiar with traditional Chinese ideas and found this choice of words and my rationale for making it worthy of consideration. The idea that I've expressed here is not something that is unique or original to me. It's something I've learned from my Chinese teachers and students. Beyond this, I'd say that Chinese experts are not and really cannot be except in rare cases, the final arbiters of what a successful translation is. I believe this requires ratification of native English speakers who are familiar both with the source language and its context, the technical material of the subject, and, of course, their own native language...as an aboslute minimum set of requirements. Many Chinese have adopted altogether wrong English translations of Chinese words because " that's the way they do it. " Lacking a deep familiarity with the ways of the English language, they often do not even notice the errors until they are pointed out. I'm going to be > surprised if they say connect or communication. Communication seems > way too abstract here and does not, to my mind, provide a definite, > concrete, visualizable mechanism for the causation of pain. Well, then it should surprise you to learn that it was a bunch of Chinese who first taught me that understanding of qi4 and jing1 luo4 and of the whole dynamic of traditional Chinese anatomy and physiology. After all, what connects or fails to connect? Qi4. Like it often is, it is an implied, invisible, i.e. unstated term in that old sayng. Further, > would the majority of Chinese CM practitioners characterize the most > famous CM medicinals for the treatment of pain as being " connectors " > or " flow-freers " ? I'm thinking here of meds such as Chuan Xiong, Yan > Hu Suo, Mu Xiang, Ru Xiang, Mo Yao, Bai Zhi, etc. Again, many Chinese use whatever terms are in common use. I'm not talking about usage patterns. I'm talking about the underlying concept and the appropriate use of theory to address pain. As I said, the idea of flow is not at all wrong. It is simply one of a number of ideas that are associated with the word tong1. And if you translate tong1 as " flow " and do not include in your explication of " flow " the more basic and underlying condition of connectivity or lack thereof, you leave your readers with an incomplete sense of the whole Chinese character. Alon, pay attention to this point if you want another concrete example of how the study of Chinese lanaguage can facillitate the study of Chinese medical theory. The whole idea includes this notion of the qi4 being connected or disconnected. The flow of various things characterizes a harmonious condition in which the qi4 is well interconnected and inter-communicating between the various systems and sub-systems that traditional anatomy and physiology identify. The flow is not the qi4 but a characteristic of qi4...just one. It has other characteristics and to leave them out is an error. And I don't think this can be dismissed as a mere penchant for metaphysical interpretations of these words and ideas. It's really not such a far-fetched idea from a very traditional point of view. What is the theory of the viscera and bowels, but a statement of the patterns of communication between the principal internal structures and systems of the body? > > This is one place where your penchant for more metaphysical, > philosophical definitions of CM terms seems a bit guo fen. Then please draw the limits for me clearly and help me understand what you mean. > > > > Not the least of the challenges involved in > > understanding and dealing with pain is the > > fact of its highly subjective nature. One > > individual's pain is another's pleasure and > > vice versa. > > Again, let's keep this common sense. I think it's altogether common sense to recognize that if you're going to be doing assessment of pain as part of diagnosis in traditional Chinese medicine you should keep in mind that what one person refers to as pain another would not even stop to consider as sensation. If you don't maintain this perspective on pain, you can err in its evaluation by relating to it as if it were a static property of people. People have been talking about > " injuries, " presumably such as stubbing one's toe or cutting oneself. > I completely agree that the sensation of pain is different from > invidual to individual. But what we have been talking about is why, in > CM terms, some people seem to experience pain more acutely than > others. I suggest that in CM terms the only meaningful answer to an individual's experience of pain is to be found in that individual's own mind, body, symptoms, statements, etc. This gets at the same error in orientation of basic theory that I mentioned before, i.e. the fitting of situations to theory. Theory exists to open doors to therapeutic intervention. It is not really meant as an analytic tool for abstract reckoning. It's a tool for for doing work in the clinic. Trying to come up with a theoretical explanation of why some people experience pain more acutely than others leads in the direction of creating fixed ideas related to pain. Some people are this way or that way and thus experience pain more or less acutely. Such conclusions could lead a clinician to approach people as if they were expected to fit into one of these patterns. This is backwards. Patterns have to be taken out, applied to the patient, set aside if they don't match, substituted, changed during the course of treatment, etc. The idea that some people have more of this or that kind of qi4 and thus experience pain seems not just limited but limiting to me. But as I said below, I still haven't fully grasped your postulates on the subject. I will certainly continue to think about them. > If qi is not something that flows through the channels and network > vessels, why did the Chinese take such great effects to choose words > and consciously liken it to river, streams, canals, etc.? Once again, I didn't say that flow is wrong. Only that it is incomplete. As to why the Chinese choose words that consciously liken the changes of qi4 to those of water, there are several answers that suggest themselves to me. It's a fascinating question actually. First, it exemplifies the kind of metaphoric function of Chinese language that is meant not only as a way of imparting a good deal of information in just a few words, but also as a training regimen for the human mind. Another set of skills, Alon, that study of the language can help an individual develop. I find that Chinese classical writing can hardly ever be taken at face value. There are always layers of meaning that one has to peel away, peer through, or otherwise take into consideration. It's another factor that makes the study of the language both challenging and rewarding. Often in dealing with such metaphoric comparisons in Chinese classical literature, one of the first decisions that face a reader is how to take it. Is it, in fact, a metaphor or is it an attempt at a more concrete description. Of course the same thing holds for statements that appear to be concrete descriptions. And the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. That is, a full understanding of the text often results from the reader's merging of the metaphoric and non-metaphoric senses of the passages in question. I suggest that the water metaphor for the movements of qi4 in the body require this kind of hybrid understanding. They are neither entirely metaphoric nor do they really attempt to present a concrete image of the movement of qi4 through the body like rivers and streams. I think the message, as it so often is with the subject of qi4, is that it is invisible. It is present. It functions. But you cannot reach out and grasp it. You can see its traces, its manifestations; but you cannot see qi4. One of the big problems in limiting the understanding of qi4 to strictly " energetic " terms, i.e. to consider that it is something that flows through the body like a river or stream, is that this approach naturally leads one to ask, Well, then where is it? Of course, looking for something all day long that cannot be seen will not likely result in seeing it. And this take on qi4 sets us all up eventually for a very big loss, as sincere investigators, guided to look for something that cannot be seen, finally throw up their hands in despair announcing to the world that it doesn't exist after all. So I think this is an important point. It's what motivated us to write A Breif History of Qi4. Further, it > is Chinese themselves who speak of liu2 qi4, the flow of qi, as in > Gong Ding-xian's famous formula Shi Liu Wei Liu Qi Yin (Sixteen > Flavors Flow the Qi Drink). The definitions of liu in The Pinyin > Chinese-English Dictionary are: 1) flow (as in the river flows east); > 2)moving from place to place; 3) spread, circulate; 4) change for th > worse, degenrate; 5) banish, send into exile; 6) as a noun, a stream > of water; 7)something resembling a stream of water; 8)class, rate, > grade. If this dictionary is not scholarly enough, Matthews gives: > 1) to flow, to drift, to circulate; 2) a current; 3) to descend; 4) > unstable, weak. Well, again, flow is not wrong. Nor is it wrong to want precise verbal definitions. I'm not a scholar Bob. I'm a writer. I put up a fuss about the meaning and use of words because they are my stock in trade. If we don't look after 'em, who will? > > Sensation, as a function of consciousness, is a function of the spirit > brilliance which is nothing other than the conscious functions of the > spirit qi. I have now read this sentence at least a dozen times, and I have to admit that I don't know what you mean. I get hung up right at the start, because I don't know what you mean by sensation as a function of consciousness. I tend to see sensation as part of the substrate of consciousness, i.e. consciousness relies on sensation to a far greater degree than sensation relies upon consciousness. You can produce sensations in an unconscious person, cause sensory responses of various kinds, and so on. But I don't think that there can be consciousness without sensation. Consciousness is, in part at least, awareness of sensation, or more precisely, awareness of self being aware of sensation. This is a rough paraphrase of the approach to understanding consciousness contained in Damasio's The Feeling of What Happens, that we've talked about before if I remember correctly. > I agree my choice of examples was inappropriate. I did definitely > forget that, in Chinese, de qi is " not pain, " I picked that example > because I assumed we all had lots of experience with different > patients' sensitivity to needles and even the Nei Jing discusses that > difference. So I was looking for a shared experience. However, I still > think my overall explanation differences of sensitivity to pain is a > potentially correct and useful CM one. For sure, this is only my own > ratiocination, and it would be interesting if a number of " old Chinese > doctors " (lao zhong yi) looked it over and critiqued it. Well, my comments were and are limited to the sense in which theory is applied generally. It would certainly be interesting to get the feedback of some Chinese experts. And it is certainly useful to be able to talk it over with you. Thanks, Ken > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
